Looking for feedback.
One of the Washington Post's good on-line features are daily chats with staff. They are moderated. The questions pass through a filter before they are answered. But they are quite popular. They have huge readership so they get a lot of questions in the time allotted. Some are tough. Some are useful. Some are a waste of time. But they show that the Post isn't afraid of engaging its readers, even if it means taking some uncomfortable questions.
Neither is the Arkansas Times.
I answer the occasional questions that pop up on threads when the spirit moves and when I catch them in a time when many might see the answers. I think we're pretty accessible.
But I'm thinking of scheduling some Q&A sessions. We don't have the capability for "live" interaction. But I thought I could try this. I can open up a line for questions. I'll vow to answer them all, or at least respond to the extent I'm able. Nothing's off limits. But that doesn't mean I promise to answer every question. If I deem something too personal, I'll say so. I think it might be best to schedule a prime time to do this, where I'd promise to be by the computer for, say, a couple of hours, so I could post answers fairly quickly. What do readers think? Is a schedule time a better format? Or would an open line that I get back to to work through the questions work just as well? The Post's nearly instantaneous sessions are really great, but we just don't have the technology for that now.
Tell me what you think. My idea would be to take questions on ANYTHING. Things you'd like to know. Questions on news coverage. Personal questions. Etc.